# C_2015406EN.01000701.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci

(Case C-216/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2010/64/EU - Right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings - Language of the proceedings - Penalty order imposing a fine - Possibility of lodging an objection in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Right to be informed of the charge - Service of a penalty order - Procedures - Mandatory appointment by the accused person of person authorised to accept service - Period for lodging an objection running from service on the person authorised to accept service))

(2015/C 406/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Laufen

Party in the main criminal proceedings

Gavril Covaci

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, in criminal proceedings, does not permit the individual against whom a penalty order has been made to lodge an objection in writing against that order in a language other than that of the proceedings, even though that individual does not have a command of the language of the proceedings, provided that the competent authorities do not consider, in accordance with Article 3(3) of that directive, that, in the light of the proceedings concerned and the circumstances of the case, such an objection constitutes an essential document. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, in criminal proceedings, does not permit the individual against whom a penalty order has been made to lodge an objection in writing against that order in a language other than that of the proceedings, even though that individual does not have a command of the language of the proceedings, provided that the competent authorities do not consider, in accordance with Article 3(3) of that directive, that, in the light of the proceedings concerned and the circumstances of the case, such an objection constitutes an essential document.

| 2. | Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in criminal proceedings, makes it mandatory for an accused person not residing in that Member State to appoint a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order concerning him, provided that that accused person does in fact have the benefit of the whole of the prescribed period for lodging an objection against that order. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in criminal proceedings, makes it mandatory for an accused person not residing in that Member State to appoint a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order concerning him, provided that that accused person does in fact have the benefit of the whole of the prescribed period for lodging an objection against that order.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

---